Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#81

Post by crmrc114 »

DannyB2 wrote: post #62

Just to point something out. IBM sponsored and was the primary contributor of resources to an independently developed Java work-alike called Apache Harmony. (about JDK 1.5 level, IIRC) Apache Harmony was, naturally, under the Apache license. Google wanted something like Java for Android, so Google used Apache Harmony. Sun was okay with Google having something like Java in Android and had said so. (perhaps reluctantly…

So thank you for giving an awesome tl;dr on this- honestly that sounds much like SCO in the 90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes

God I miss SUN and SGI- all those pretty computer chassis....Oracle basically is a lawyer who murdered SUN and wears their rotting flesh around pointing at people and yelling THEIF!

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#82

Post by hcknwscommenter »

danShumway wrote: post #77
pjmlp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sun was okay with Google having something like Java in Android and had said so. (perhaps reluctantly) That isn't how things went according to Gosling. "Triangulation 245: James Gosling on Oracle vs Sun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be... If Google actually cared, they could have bought Sun and own Java.

Even Gosling isn't advocating that the APIs were copyrighted. What he advocates is that he doesn't think it was actually a clean-room implementation, and that Google should have been 'nicer' about the whole process in general -- that regardless of the legal points, Google was kind of a jerk. When it gets to the subject of APIs, Gosling is suddenly a lot less accusatory. Here's the actual conversation: > Host: "I woul…

" issues around Google's actual clean-room implementation are largely irrelevant at this point in the lawsuit"

Are they? I am not an expert on this, but isn't the fact of actual copying (rather than successful clean-room implementation) a very relevant piece of information for copyright?

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#83

Post by tracker1 »

fotcorn wrote: post #66

Question: My understanding is that the Supreme Court is here to interpret the constitution and other laws. When it now decides that Oracle is right and APIs are copyrightable, can't the other parts of the government introduce a new law making APIs not copyrightable again?

Yes, but there is a lot of financial interest at stake that could make it even more interesting in practice... not good, but interesting.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#84

Post by sangnoir »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #82
danShumway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Gosling isn't advocating that the APIs were copyrighted. What he advocates is that he doesn't think it was actually a clean-room implementation, and that Google should have been 'nicer' about the whole process in general -- that regardless of the legal points, Google was kind of a jerk. When it gets to the subject of APIs, Gosling is suddenly a lot less accusatory. Here's the actual conversation: > Host: "I woul…

" issues around Google's actual clean-room implementation are largely irrelevant at this point in the lawsuit" Are they? I am not an expert on this, but isn't the fact of actual copying (rather than successful clean-room implementation) a very relevant piece of information for copyright?

Actual copying is important, but not in this particular lawsuit.

Oracle is claiming that the organization of constants/methods in packages as well as the method signatures are copyrighted - they are arguing that it doesn't matter if you have a clean room implementation of BufferedInputReader() if you put it in java.io (like Oracle's JRE) and gave it the same signature as Oracle did, then you're infringing on their copyright.

If this SCOTUS broadly rules in Oracles favor, this would kill many projects, including WINE (which implements Microsoft's Win32 API without copying)

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#85

Post by gpm »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #82
danShumway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Gosling isn't advocating that the APIs were copyrighted. What he advocates is that he doesn't think it was actually a clean-room implementation, and that Google should have been 'nicer' about the whole process in general -- that regardless of the legal points, Google was kind of a jerk. When it gets to the subject of APIs, Gosling is suddenly a lot less accusatory. Here's the actual conversation: > Host: "I woul…

" issues around Google's actual clean-room implementation are largely irrelevant at this point in the lawsuit" Are they? I am not an expert on this, but isn't the fact of actual copying (rather than successful clean-room implementation) a very relevant piece of information for copyright?

"At this point" is key, actual copying was important earlier in this case but is now a decided issue.

This appeal is strictly about the copyrightability of APIs. The supreme court generally doesn't address cases as a whole, but specific issues brought up to it on appeal.

If I remember the decisions on the actual copying part of the case correctly, it was decided that Google copied something like a dozen lines of uninteresting code directly (not api's, just some method implementation), and that this was de minimis copying and didn't constitute infringement. You should check if you really care though, I might be wrong.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#86

Post by davorak »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #13

Who here remembers Groklaw? PJ was covering Oracle vs. Google with the same level of detail that she used on SCO vs. IBM. Coverage ran up into the first appeal, when she stopped updating the site. • The list of all Oracle vs. Google filings (up to the site's closing), with links to articles that mention them. Not all filings had corresponding articles: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoog... •…

Reading Groklaw when it was updating was amazing. I remember it as clear and concise writing that always seemed to illuminate the facts and angles to best grasp the topic/issue with. I wrote a thank you email to the author for all of the great articles when it was shutting down.

I still occasional think about it and wish it was around to illuminate contemporary issues.

If you have recommendations for a similar source of writing/insight please let me know.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#87

Post by jcranmer »

pgsbathhouse wrote: post #71

Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court. Google will lose this. You don't explicitly copy code, take other people's engineers after exiting licensing talks with the company you took from, and have it not be about stealing someone else's intellec…

> Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court.

This is not how appeals works. The Supreme Court is obliged to cover just two questions presented in the petition for cert: (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

The reason why it's hearing this case is because precedent on every circuit appeals court other than the federal circuit has answered "no" to the first question, and the precedent of fair use interpretation is such that CAFC overturning the jury verdict to rule not-fair-use is incredibly surprising.

> The courts have already explicitly denied Google's claim they did this for compatibility or interoperability.

That is factually incorrect. Whether or not Google did it for compatibility or interoperability is a factual determination. And facts are determined by jury, not by courts (and definitely not appeal courts). CAFC overturned the jury verdict, which found that Google's use was fair use. And Oracle does not contend that the jury was given bad instructions, which means that the appeals court can only consider if the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

> Google wanted all the benefits of using Java without actually paying for it.

I do not dispute this, and I don't think anyone disputes this. But the question is if it is legal for Google to do what it did... and the contention of quite literally everybody but Oracle is that it is.

> Google was in talks with Oracle to license Java but backed out when they didn't want to pay to use it.

Google was in talks with Sun, not Oracle. Sun didn't pursue Google because they couldn't find evidence of copyright violation. (As has been pointed out, many Sun engineers do suspect that Google didn't follow clean room implementation procedures strictly, but the amount of copied code that even Oracle could dredge up is 8 test files and a 10-line method called rangeCheck--not worth pursuing).

If you're making an emotional case based on the investment put into Java, you should be honest that Oracle bought Sun to acquire Java, in large part to sue Google for the use of Java in Android.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#88

Post by pjmlp »

danShumway wrote: post #73
pjmlp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, and Google thought that Sun would sink and they could get away with screwing Sun. If Google was so interested in Java, they could have made a bid to own Java. Guess what, they would not have been sued and control its destiny. With Google at the steering wheel I bet Java developers would still be enjoying Java 6.

The argument that Google deserves punishment because they didn't buy another company is not one I'm even remotely sympathetic to. The entire industry would be worse off today if our legal policy on APIs was, "they're copyrighted, but don't worry, you can just buy out companies you want to interop with." Imagine how much smaller and how much more uninteresting the tech world would be. Any company that wasn't the size…

Yes I am, if Google was honest regarding Java they should have acquired the language stewardship.

I work mostly with commercial software, so IP and patents are business as usual.

Maybe even this would finally provide a way for many freetards to actually pay for the tooling they use.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#89

Post by russellbeattie »

pgsbathhouse wrote: post #71

Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court. Google will lose this. You don't explicitly copy code, take other people's engineers after exiting licensing talks with the company you took from, and have it not be about stealing someone else's intellec…

You're description of the history is 100% correct. Legally, who knows, but you've got what actually happened 100% correct.

There are no good guys in this situation. The cynicism on both sides is astounding. One company outright stole work and negotiated in bad faith, and another tried to take advantage of that in the courts, which threatens to set a horrible precedent about APIs if they win.

Everything about this stinks.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#90

Post by zubairq »

gpm wrote: post #48
zubairq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand I agree that Google saying that we need Open interfaces is correct, but then I also know that most code within Google itself is closed source. Does anyone know if there is an Open Interface to Google Search?

In the sense being used in this article and court case, absolutely https://www.google.com /search?hl=en&q= Actually it's possible that they copied that interface from someone else, basically every search engine uses the same one, it's how your browser url bar works.

Good point. I actually meant that google had an internal API for search which they use for customizing the search engine which I guess that they have not opened
Post reply on HN